The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in human personality. Center for healing and extrasensory perception "healthier" The relationship between the social and biological in the structure of individuality

The concepts of “personality” and “individuality”, from the point of view of domestic psychology, do not coincide. From one point of view (representatives of the St. Petersburg psychological school), individuality combines those biological and social characteristics a person that makes him different from other people - the concept "individuality" from this position it is broader than the concept of “personality”. From another point of view (representatives of the Moscow psychological school), the concept "individuality"- the narrowest in the structure of human organization, uniting a small group of qualities. Common to these approaches is that the concept of “personality” includes human qualities that manifest themselves at the social level during the formation of social relationships and connections of a person.

There are a number of psychological concepts in which personality- a holistic integrative education that includes all human characteristics: biological, mental and social. This difference of opinion is caused by differences in approaches to considering the relationship between the biological and the social in the structure of a person’s personality.

The problem of interaction between biological,social and mental.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in human personality- one of the central problems modern psychology. In the process of formation and development of psychological science, all possible connections between concepts were considered "mental», "social" And "biological". Mental development- a spontaneous process, independent of either the biological or the social; derived only from biological or only from social development; the result of their parallel action on the individual, etc.

Groups of concepts, By-who view the relationship between social, mental and biological:

1. In the group of concepts, in which it is proved spontaneity of mental development, mental- a phenomenon completely subject to its own internal laws, in no way connected with either the biological or the social.

2. IN biologizing concepts mental- a linear function of the development of the organism, something following this development. From the perspective of these concepts, all features of mental processes, states and properties of a person are determined by the features of the biological structure, and their development is subject to biological laws. These concepts use laws discovered in the study of animals, which do not take into account the specific development of the human body. To explain mental development, it is used basic biogenetic law - law of recapitulation, according to which the development of an individual reproduces in its main features the evolution of the species to which this individual belongs. An extreme manifestation of this position is the statement that the mental as an independent phenomenon does not exist in nature, since all mental phenomena can be described or explained using biological (physiological) concepts.

3. Sociologizing concepts come from the idea of ​​recapitulation, but here it is presented differently. Within these concepts it is argued that mental development of the individual reproduces the main stages of the process in a concise form historical development society: the development of its spiritual life, culture.

The essence of such concepts was expressed IN. Stern. In his proposed interpretation principle of recapitulation covers the evolution of the animal psyche and the history of the spiritual development of society.

These two trends are reflected in the patterns of human development. These two tendencies are in constant interaction, and for psychology it is important to clarify the nature of their relationship.

The results of studies of the patterns of human mental development indicate that the initial prerequisite for the mental development of an individual is its biological development. An individual is born with a certain set of biological properties and physiological mechanisms, which act as the basis of his mental development. But these prerequisites are realized when a person is in conditions human society.

Considering the problem of interaction and mutual influence of biological and social in human mental development, they distinguish three levels of human organization: level of biological organization, social level and level of mental organization. We are talking about interaction in the triad “biological - mental - social”. The approach to studying the relationship between the components of this triad is formed from an understanding of the psychological essence of the concept "personality".

In various domestic psychological schools, the relationship between the biological and the social in the individual and their role in mental development are interpreted differently. Representatives of Moscow University believe that social determinants play a more significant role in the development and formation of personality. Representatives of St. Petersburg University believe that social and biological determinants are equal in personality development. These positions complement each other.

Personality structure concept K.TO.Platonov.

Since mid 1960-x yy. Attempts began to be made to elucidate the general structure of personality. Characteristic in this direction approach to.TO. Platonov. Personality (according to K.TO. Platonov)- a certain biosocial hierarchical structure.

Substructures of personality (according to K.TO. Platonov):

1. Directionality.

2. Experience (knowledge, abilities, skills).

3. Individual characteristics of various forms of reflection (sensation, perception, memory, thinking).

4. United properties of temperament.

In contrast to the opinion of K.K. Platonov, the idea was expressed that the biological, entering the human personality, becomes social.

Structural Approach A.N.Leontyev.

By the end of 1970-x yy. the concept began to develop systematic approach. In this regard, the ideas of A. N. Leontiev are of particular interest.

Peculiarities of Leontiev's understanding of personality. Personality (according to A. N. Leontiev)- this is a special type of psychological formation generated by a person’s life in society. The subordination of various activities creates the basis of personality, the formation of which occurs in the process of social development (ontogenesis). Leontiev did not include genotypically determined human characteristics as a concept of “personality.”- physical constitution, type nervous system, temperament, biological needs, affectivity, natural inclinations, lifetime acquired knowledge, skills and abilities. Concept “individual” (according to Leontiev) reflects integrity and indivisibility specific person as a separate individual of a given biological species and the characteristics of a particular representative of the species that distinguish it from other representatives of this species. The properties of an individual do not transform into personality properties. They constitute the prerequisites and conditions for its formation.

Personality Concept A.IN.Petrovsky.

The approach to understanding the problem of personality formulated by Leontiev found its further development in the works of domestic psychologists - representatives of the Moscow school: A. IN. Petrovsky. Personality in psychology (according to A. IN. Petrovsky)- a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication, characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in the individual.

The concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical. Personality- this is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society in the process of his entry into social relations.

To understand the basis on which certain personality traits are formed, we need to consider a person’s life in society. The inclusion of an individual in the system of social relations determines the content and nature of the activities he performs, the range and methods of communication with other people - the features of his social existence and lifestyle. But the way of life of individual individuals, certain communities of people, and society as a whole is determined by the historically developing system of social relations. Personality can only be understood or studied in the context of specific social conditions, specific historical era.

Personality can only be understood in a system of stable interpersonal connections, mediated by the content, values, and meaning of the joint activities of each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are real, but supersensual in nature. They manifest themselves in specific individual properties and actions of people included in the team, but are not limited to them.

Personality and individuality form a unity, but not an identity.

If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relationships, they turn out to be insignificant for personality assessment and do not receive conditions for development. The individual characteristics of a person do not manifest themselves in any way until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relations, the subject of which is the given person as an individual. Representatives of the Moscow psychological school believe that individuality is one of the aspects of a person’s personality.

The position of representatives of the Moscow psychological school can be traced two main points: personality and its characteristics are compared with the level of social manifestation of human qualities and properties; personality- a social product, in no way related to biological determinants. Conclusion: the social has a greater influence on the mental development of the individual.

The problem of personality in the works of B. G.Ananyeva.

The idea of ​​the problem of personality, formed within the framework of the St. Petersburg psychological school, is presented in the works B. G. Ananyeva. First distinctive feature Ananyev's approach to considering the problem of personality psychology is what he highlighted four levels of human organization: “individual - subject of activity - personality - individuality.” This is main difference in approaches, which is associated with different views on the relationship between the biological and the social and their influence on the process of human mental development.

Personality (according to Ananyev)- is a social individual, object and subject of the historical process. The characteristics of a person reveal the social essence of a person - the ability to be a person is inherent in a person as a social being. Social creature- a person of a specific socio-historical era in the totality of his social relations. St. Petersburg and Moscow psychological schools in the concept "personality" includes social characteristics of a person. This is unity of positions in Russian psychology regarding the problem of human personality.

Of the many social roles, attitudes, and value orientations, only a few are included in the personality structure. This structure may include some properties of the individual, many times mediated by the social properties of the individual. The personality structure includes the structure of the individual in the form of general and relevant complexes of organic properties for life and behavior.

The main difference between representatives of the two leading domestic psychological schools lies in the disagreement on the participation of biological determinants in the formation of personality. Ananyev emphasized that he was close to the position of K.K. Platonov. Personality changes in the process of human history and in the process of individual development. A person is born a biological being, and becomes a personality in the process of ontogenesis through the assimilation of the socio-historical experience of mankind.

Representatives of the St. Petersburg school recognize the role of biological determinants in the mental development of the individual with the dominant role of social factors. Disagreements on this issue also lead to certain differences in views on the nature of individuality. Ananyev believed that individuality- an individual with a complex of natural properties, but not every individual is an individual. To do this, the individual must become a person.

Integrated approach B. F.Lomov to the study of personality.

Famous domestic psychologist B. F. Lomov, exploring the problems of personality formation, tried to reveal the complexity and ambiguity of the relationship between the social and biological in personality. His views on this problem were as follows: main provisions:

1. When studying the development of an individual, one cannot limit oneself only to the analysis of individual mental functions and states. All mental functions must be considered in the context of personality formation and development. In this regard, the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social appears as a problem of the relationship between the organism and the individual.

2. One of these concepts was formed within the framework of biological sciences, and the other - within the framework social sciences. Both regard man as a member of the species Homo Sapiens and as a member of society. Each of these concepts reflects different systems of human properties: in the concept organism- the structure of the human individual as a biological system, and in the concept personality- a person’s involvement in the life of society.

3. Studying the formation and development of personality, domestic psychology proceeds from the fact that personality- this is the social quality of an individual, in which a person appears as a member of human society. Outside of society, this quality of an individual does not exist, and therefore outside of the analysis of relationships "individual-society" it cannot be understood. The objective basis of an individual’s personal properties is the system of social relations in which he lives and develops.

4. The formation and development of a personality must be considered as its assimilation of social programs that have developed in a given society at a given historical stage. This process is directed by society with the help of special social institutions: systems of upbringing and education.

Based on this, you can do next output: the factors that determine the nature of an individual’s development are systemic in nature and highly dynamic - at each stage of development they play a different role. They contain social and biological determinants.

Formation and development of personality. Classification of personality concepts.

A person is not born as a person, but becomes. There are many different theories of personality, and in each of them the problem of personality development is considered in its own way. Psychoanalytic theory understands development- adaptation of human biological nature to life in society, development of certain defense mechanisms and ways to satisfy needs. Trait theory bases his idea of ​​development on the fact that all personality traits are formed during life, and considers the process of their origin, transformation and stabilization as subject to non-biological laws. Social learning theory is personality development process- formation of certain ways of interpersonal interaction between people. Humanistic and other phenomenological theories interpret personality development- the process of becoming “I”.

Personality development concept E.Erickson.

There is a tendency towards an integrated, holistic consideration of personality from the perspective of different theories and approaches. Within the framework of this approach, several concepts have been formed that take into account the coordinated, systemic formation and interdependent transformation of all aspects of personality. These development concepts relate to integrative concepts.

One of these concepts was the theory belonging to American psychologist E. Erickson, who in his views on development adhered epigenetic principle: genetic predetermination of the stages that a person necessarily goes through in his personal development from birth to the end of his days.

Life psychological crises, occurring in every person:

1. Crisis of trust - mistrust (1st year of life).

2. Crisis of autonomy - doubts and shame (about 2-3 years).

3. Crisis of emergence of initiative - emergence of feelings of guilt (approximately from 3 to 6 years).

4. Crisis of hard work - inferiority complex (from 7 to 12 years).

5. Crisis of personal self-determination - individual dullness and conformity (from 12 to 18 years).

6. Crisis of intimacy and sociability - personal psychological isolation (about 20 years).

7. The crisis of caring for the education of the new generation - “immersion in oneself” (between 30 and 60 years).

8. Crisis of satisfaction with life lived - despair (over 60 years old).

Personality formation in Erikson's concept- a change of stages, at each of which there is a qualitative transformation of a person’s inner world and a radical change in his relationships with people around him. As a result of this, he as a person acquires something new, characteristic specifically for this stage of development and retained by him throughout his life. New personality traits emerge from previous development.

Forming and developing as a person, a person acquires positive qualities and disadvantages. Erikson reflected in his concept only two extreme lines of personal development: normal and abnormal.

Table. Stages of personality development (according to E.Erickson).

Stage	Normal line	Anomalous line
1. Early infancy (from birth to 1 year)	Trust in people. Mutual love, affection, mutual recognition of parents and child, satisfaction of children's needs for communication and other vital needs.	Distrust of people as a result of mother’s mistreatment of the child, ignoring, neglecting him, deprivation of love. Too early or abrupt weaning of the child from the breast, his emotional isolation.
2. Late infancy (from 1 year to 3 years)	Independence, self-confidence. The child looks at himself as an independent, separate person, but still dependent on his parents.	Self-doubt and an exaggerated sense of shame. The child feels unfit and doubts his abilities. Experiences deprivation and deficiencies in the development of basic motor skills (walking). He has poorly developed speech, has desire hide your inferiority from people around you.
3. Early childhood (about 3-6 years old)	Curiosity and activity. Lively imagination and interested study of the surrounding world, imitation of adults, inclusion in gender-role behavior.	Passivity and indifference to people. Lethargy, lack of initiative, infantile feelings of envy of other children, depression and evasiveness, lack of signs of gender-role behavior.
4. Middle childhood (from 5 to 11 years old)	Hard work. Expressed sense of duty and desire to achieve success. Development of cognitive and communication skills. Setting yourself and solving real problems. Active assimilation of instrumental and objective actions, task orientation.	Feeling of own inferiority. Underdeveloped work skills. Avoiding difficult tasks and situations of competition with other people. An acute sense of one's own inferiority, doomed to remain mediocre throughout one's life. A feeling of “the calm before the storm,” or puberty. Conformity, slavish behavior. A feeling of futility of efforts made when solving various problems.
5. Puberty, adolescence and adolescence (from 11 to 20 years old)	Life self-determination. Development of time perspective - plans for the future. Self-determination in questions: what to be? and who to be? Active self-discovery and experimentation in different roles. Teaching. Clear gender polarization in forms of interpersonal behavior. Formation of worldview. Assuming leadership in peer groups and deferring to them when necessary.	Confusion of roles. Displacement and confusion of time perspectives: the appearance of thoughts about the future, present and past. Concentration of mental strength on self-knowledge, a strong desire to understand oneself to the detriment of developing relationships with the outside world and people. Gender-role fixation. Loss of work activity. Mixing forms of gender-role behavior and leadership roles. Confusion in moral and ideological attitudes.
6. Early adulthood (from 20 to 40-45 years)	Closeness to people. The desire for contacts with people, the desire and ability to devote oneself to people. Having and raising children, love and work. Satisfaction with personal life.	Isolation from people. Avoidance of people, especially close, intimate relationships with them. Character difficulties, promiscuous relationships and unpredictable behavior. Non-recognition, isolation, the first symptoms of mental disorders, mental disorders that arise under the influence of supposedly existing and acting threatening forces in the world.
7. Middle adulthood (from 40-45 to 60 years)	Creation. Productive and creative work over yourself and with other people. A mature, fulfilling and varied life. Satisfaction with family relationships and a sense of pride in their children. Training and education of the new generation.	Stagnation. Egoism and egocentrism. Unproductivity at work. Early disability. Self-forgiveness and exceptional self-care.
8. Late adulthood (over 60 years old)	Fullness of life. Constant thinking about the past, its calm, balanced assessment. Accepting life as it is. A feeling of completeness and usefulness of life lived. The ability to come to terms with the inevitable. Understanding that death is not scary.	Despair. The feeling that life has been lived in vain, that there is too little time left, that it is passing too quickly. Awareness of the meaninglessness of one’s existence, loss of faith in oneself and in other people. The desire to live life again, the desire to get more from it than was received. A feeling of the absence of order in the world, the presence of an evil, unreasonable principle in it. Fear of approaching death.

Socialization and individualization as forms of personality development.Primary and secondary socialization. Enculturation. Self-development and self-realization of personality. Stability of personal properties.

In Russian psychology, it is believed that personality development occurs in the process of its socialization and education. Human- a social being, from the first days of his existence he is surrounded by his own kind, included in various kinds of social interactions. A person gains his first experience of social communication within his family even before he begins to speak. Subsequently, being a part of society, a person constantly acquires a certain subjective experience, which becomes an integral part of his personality. This process, the subsequent active reproduction of social experience by the individual, is called socialization.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

Higher professional education

"Voronezh State Technical University"

Department of Personnel Management

COURSE WORK

Discipline: “Concept of modern natural science”

On the topic of: " Biological and social in personality development »

Completed by: 3rd year IEF student

UP groups – 052

Zykova L.V.

Checked by: Nagibina N.A.

Voronezh 2007

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….2

2. Biological in personality development……………………………………...4

3. Social in personality development……………………………………………………6

4. The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social. Sociobiology……………………………………………………………..8

5. Theories of personality development…………………………………………….17

· Evolutionary theory of development

Revolutionary theory of development

· Probabilistic (stochastic) theory of development

· Functional theory of development

6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….19

7. List of references……………………………………………………20

INTRODUCTION

In understanding the essence of man, the question of the relationship between the biological and social aspects of him is very important. Man is a product of the long development of living nature. As a biological being, it is a bodily-material formation with its own physiological functions. At the same time, a person is born and lives in society, in a social environment, and therefore he is certainly a social being.

However, the era in which we live has had a very negative impact on human biology. Unfavorable environmental factors, neuropsychic overloads associated with life in a technicalized world negatively affect human health and heredity. There is, for example, real danger genetic deformations of the human body due to powerful radiation and chemical pollution environment. Many alarming questions, for which there are no clear answers yet, are raised by the successes of genetic engineering, the problems of cloning animals (and, in the possible future, humans themselves), eating transgenic (genetically modified) foods, etc. Genetic damage from the influence of many technogenic factors puts the problem of the survival of humanity as a biological species on the agenda today.

IN last decades The 20th century saw a significant increase in the biological orientation in understanding the human problem. This was a consequence of the enormous successes of biology and the emergence of a new scientific direction - sociobiology. The founder of this direction is considered to be the American biologist E.O. Wilson, who published the book “Sociobiology: a new synthesis” in 1975. This work oriented researchers toward a broad study of the biological foundations of human social life. Proponents of sociobiology try to reconcile the data of genetics, ethology (the study of animal behavior), evolutionary biology, etc. in order to form biological ideas about human social behavior. In his research, the founder of sociobiology E. Wilson came to the following main conclusions:

A) Education in a social environment is an attempt to “curb” our biological nature;

B) There is a dependence of the forms of human social behavior on its genetic foundations.

It is the latter that turn out to be the final causes of many human actions. From this point of view, a person is an object, first of all, of biological knowledge.

However, attempts to explain human development and behavior primarily within the framework of biology can hardly be considered valid. Studies conducted by some scientists show that only 15% of all acts of human activity are purely biological in nature. Without rejecting many of the achievements of modern sociobiology, it should be borne in mind that the biological and social in man are closely interconnected.

It is in the process of social interaction, in the process of mastering the culture accumulated by humanity, that the most important qualities of a person are formed - his consciousness and self-awareness, professional and personal characteristics.

BIOLOGICAL IN PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
In terms of biological adaptation to nature, humans are significantly inferior to the vast majority of representatives of the animal world. If a person is returned to animal world, - it will suffer a catastrophic defeat in the competitive struggle for existence and will be able to live only in a narrow geographical zone of its origin - in the tropics, on both sides close to the equator. A person does not have warm fur, he has weak teeth, weak nails instead of claws, an unstable vertical gait on two legs, a predisposition to many diseases, degraded the immune system...
Superiority over animals is biologically ensured to humans only by the presence of a cerebral cortex, which no animal has. The cerebral cortex consists of 14 billion neurons, the functioning of which serves as the material basis for a person’s spiritual life - his consciousness, ability to work and to live in society. The cerebral cortex abundantly provides scope for endless spiritual growth and development of man and society. Suffice it to say that today, over the course of a person’s entire long life, at best, only 1 billion - only 7% - of neurons are activated, and the remaining 13 billion - 93% - remain unused “gray matter”.
General health and longevity are genetically determined in human biological nature; temperament, which is one of four possible types: choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic; talents and inclinations. It should be taken into account that each person is not a biologically repeated organism, the structure of its cells and DNA molecules (genes). It is estimated that 95 billion of us people have been born and died on Earth over 40 thousand years, among whom there was not at least one identical person.
Biological nature is the only real basis on which a person is born and exists. Each individual, each person exists from that time until his biological nature exists and lives. But with all his biological nature, man belongs to the animal world. And man is born only as the animal species Homo Sapiens; is not born as a human being, but only as a candidate for a human being. The newborn biological creature Homo Sapiens has yet to become a human being in the full sense of the word.

SOCIAL IN PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Personality socialization is the process of personality formation in certain social conditions, the process of a person’s assimilation of social experience, during which a person transforms social experience into his own values ​​and orientations, selectively introduces into his system of behavior those norms and patterns of behavior that are accepted in society or a group. Norms of behavior, moral standards, and beliefs of a person are determined by those norms that are accepted in a given society. For example, in our society, spitting on someone is a symbol of contempt, but among the Maasai tribe, it is an expression of love and blessing. Or in Asian countries it is customary to expect a guest to burp after a meal as a sign that he is completely satisfied, but in our society this is uncivilized, i.e. rules of conduct, decency, and moral standards are not the same in different societies and, accordingly, the behavior of people brought up under the influence of different societies will vary.

The following stages of socialization are distinguished:

1. Primary socialization or the stage of adaptation (from birth to adolescence, the child assimilates social experience uncritically, adapts, adapts, imitates).

2. Individualization stage(there is a desire to distinguish oneself from others, a critical attitude towards social norms of behavior). IN adolescence the stage of individualization, self-determination “the world and I” is characterized as intermediate socialization, because still unstable in the teenager’s worldview and character.

Adolescence (18-25 years) is characterized as stable conceptual socialization, when stable personality traits are developed.

3. Integration stage(there is a desire to find one’s place in society, to “fit in” with society). Integration proceeds successfully if a person’s characteristics are accepted by the group, by society. If not accepted, the following outcomes are possible:

· Maintaining one’s otherness and the emergence of aggressive interactions (relationships) with people and society.

· Changing yourself, “becoming like everyone else.”

· Conformism, external agreement, adaptation.

4. Labor stage socialization covers the entire period of a person’s maturity, the entire period of his working activity, when a person not only assimilates social experience, but also reproduces it due to the person’s active influence on the environment through his activities.

5. Post-labor stage socialization reviews elderly age as an age that makes a significant contribution to the reproduction of social experience, to the process of transmitting it to new generations.

THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL. SOCIOBIOLOGY.

The problem of the genetic sources of psychology and human behavior is one of the most important in the psychological and pedagogical sciences, since the fundamental solution to the question of the possibilities of teaching and raising children in general depends on its correct solution. According to modern data, it is almost impossible to directly influence the genetic apparatus through training and education, and, therefore, what is given genetically cannot be re-educated.

Along with the concept of “personality,” the terms “person,” “individual,” and “individuality” are used. These concepts are substantively intertwined.

Man is a generic concept, indicating that a creature belongs to the highest degree of development of living nature - to the human race. The concept of “man” affirms the genetic predetermination of the development of actually human characteristics and qualities.

An individual is a single representative of the species "homo sapiens". As individuals, people differ from each other not only in morphological characteristics (such as height, bodily constitution and eye color), but also in psychological properties (abilities, temperament, emotionality).

Individuality is the unity of the unique personal properties of a particular person. This is the uniqueness of his psychophysiological structure (type of temperament, physical and mental characteristics, intelligence, worldview, life experience).

The relationship between individuality and personality is determined by the fact that these are two ways of being a person, two different definitions of him. The discrepancy between these concepts is manifested, in particular, in the fact that there are two different processes of formation of personality and individuality.

The formation of personality is the process of socialization of a person, which consists in his assimilation of a generic, social essence. This development is always carried out in the specific historical circumstances of a person’s life. The formation of personality is associated with the individual’s acceptance of social functions and roles developed in society, social norms and rules of behavior, and with the formation of skills to build relationships with other people. A formed personality is a subject of free, independent and responsible behavior in society.

The formation of individuality is the process of individualization of an object. Individualization is the process of self-determination and isolation of the individual, his separation from the community, the design of his individuality, uniqueness and originality. A person who has become an individual is an original person who has actively and creatively demonstrated himself in life.

The concepts of “personality” and “individuality” capture different aspects, different dimensions of a person’s spiritual essence. The essence of this difference is well expressed in the language. With the word “personality” such epithets as “strong”, “energetic”, “independent” are usually used, thereby emphasizing its active representation in the eyes of others. Individuality is spoken of as “bright”, “unique”, “creative”, meaning the qualities of an independent entity.

The relationship between the social and the biological in personality

The concepts of “personality” and “individuality”, from the point of view of domestic psychology, do not coincide. Moreover, in Russian psychological science there are quite a lot of disagreements regarding the relationship between these concepts. From time to time, scientific disputes arise on the question of which of these concepts is broader. From one point of view (which is most often presented in the works of representatives of the St. Petersburg psychological school), individuality combines those biological and social characteristics of a person that make him different from other people, i.e. the concept of “individuality” from this position seems broader than the concept of “personality”. From another point of view (which can most often be found among representatives of the Moscow psychological school), the concept of “individuality” is considered as the narrowest in the structure of human organization, uniting only a relatively small group of qualities. What these approaches have in common is that the concept of “personality” includes, first of all, the qualities of a person that manifest themselves at the social level during the formation of social relations and connections of a person.

At the same time, there are a number of psychological concepts in which the personality is not considered as a subject of a system of social relations, but is presented as a holistic integrative formation, including all the characteristics of a person, including biological, mental and social. Therefore, it is believed that with the help of special personality questionnaires can describe a person as a whole. This difference of opinion is caused by differences in approaches to considering the relationship between the biological and the social in the structure of a person’s personality.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person’s personality is one of the central problems of modern psychology. In the process of formation and development of psychological science, almost all possible connections between the concepts of “mental”, “social” and “biological” were considered. Mental development was interpreted as a completely spontaneous process, independent of either biological or social, and as derived only from biological or only from social development, or as a result of their parallel action on the individual, etc. Thus, several groups of concepts can be distinguished , who differently consider the relationship between the social, mental and biological.

In the group of concepts that prove the spontaneity of mental development, the mental is viewed as a phenomenon completely subordinate to its own internal laws, in no way connected with either the biological or the social. At best, the human body, within the framework of these concepts, is assigned the role of a kind of “container” of mental activity. Most often we come across this position among authors who prove the divine origin of psychic phenomena.

In biologizing concepts, the mental is viewed as a linear function of the development of the organism, as something that unambiguously follows this development. From the perspective of these concepts, all features of mental processes, states and properties of a person are determined by the features of the biological structure, and their development is subject exclusively to biological laws. In this case, laws discovered in the study of animals are often used, which do not take into account the specifics of the development of the human body. Often in these concepts, to explain mental development, the basic biogenetic law is invoked - the law of recapitulation, according to which in the development of an individual the evolution of the species to which this individual belongs is reproduced in its main features. An extreme manifestation of this position is the statement that the mental as an independent phenomenon does not exist in nature, since all mental phenomena can be described or explained using biological (physiological) concepts. It should be noted that this point of view is very widespread among physiologists. For example, I.P. Pavlov adhered to this point of view.

There are a number of sociological concepts that also proceed from the idea of ​​recapitulation, but here it is presented somewhat differently. Within the framework of these concepts, it is argued that the mental development of an individual in a summary form reproduces the main stages of the process of historical development of society, primarily the development of its spiritual life and culture.

The essence of such concepts was most clearly expressed by V. Stern. In his proposed interpretation, the principle of recapitulation covers both the evolution of the animal psyche and the history of the spiritual development of society. He writes: “The human individual in the first months of infancy, with a predominance of lower feelings, with an unreflective reflexive and impulsive existence, is in the mammalian stage; in the second half of the year, having developed the activity of grasping and versatile imitation, he reaches the development of the highest mammal - the monkey, and in the second year, having mastered vertical gait and speech, the elementary human state. In the first five years of play and fairy tales, he stands on the level of primitive peoples. This is followed by entry into school, a more intense introduction into a social whole with certain responsibilities - an ontogenetic parallel to a person’s entry into culture with its state and economic organizations. First school years the simple content of the ancient and Old Testament world is most adequate to the childish spirit; the middle years bear the features

fanaticism of Christian culture, and only in the period of maturity is spiritual differentiation achieved, corresponding to the state of culture of the New Age"*.

Of course, we will not discuss the question of the truth of this or that approach. However, in our opinion, when citing such analogies, one cannot fail to take into account the system of training and education, which develops historically in every society and has its own specifics in each socio-historical formation. Moreover, each generation of people finds society at a certain stage of its development and is included in the system of social relations that has already taken shape at this stage. Therefore, in his development, man does not need to repeat the entire previous history in a condensed form.

No one will dispute the fact that a person is born as a representative of a certain biological species. At the same time, after birth, a person finds himself in a certain social environment and therefore develops not only as a biological object, but also how representative of a particular society.

Considering the problem of interaction and mutual influence of biological and social in human mental development, we distinguish three levels of human organization: the level of biological organization, the social level and the level of mental organization. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind that we are talking about interaction in the triad “biological-mental-social”. Moreover, the approach to studying the relationship between the components of this triad is formed from an understanding of the psychological essence of the concept of “personality”. However, answering the question of what personality is psychologically is in itself a very difficult task. Moreover, the solution to this issue has its own history.

It should be noted that in various domestic psychological schools, the concept of “personality”, and even more so the relationship between the biological and the social in the individual, their role in mental development, is interpreted differently. Despite the fact that all domestic psychologists unconditionally accept the point of view that states that the concept of “personality” refers to the social level of human organization, there are certain disagreements on the issue of the degree to which social and biological determinants are manifested in the individual. Thus, we will find a difference in views on this problem in the works of representatives of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities, which are the leading centers of Russian psychology. For example, in the works of Moscow scientists one can most often find the opinion that social determinants play a more significant role in the development and formation of personality. At the same time, the works of representatives of St. Petersburg University prove the idea that social and biological determinants are equally important for the development of personality.

From our point of view, despite the divergence of views on certain aspects of personality research, in general these positions rather complement each other.

• A COMMON PART
• Subject, system, tasks and functions of criminology
  • General characteristics of criminology
  • Goals, objectives, functions of criminology and their implementation
  • The place of criminology in the system of sciences. The interdisciplinary nature of criminology
• History of criminology. Modern criminological theories
  • The formation of criminology as a science. The main directions of studying the causes of crime
  • The origin and development of foreign criminological theories
  • Development of criminology in Russia
  • Current state of criminology
• Crime and its main characteristics
  • The concept of "crime". Crime to Crime Ratio
  • Key crime indicators
  • Latent crime and methods for its assessment
  • Social consequences of crime
  • Characteristics of modern crime, its assessment and analysis
• Determinants of crime
  • The concept of "determinism"
  • Causality theory
  • The concept of “determinants” in criminology
  • Causes and conditions of crimes
• The personality of the criminal and its criminological characteristics
  • The essence and content of the concept of “personality of a criminal” and its relationship with other related concepts
  • The structure and main features of the criminological characteristics of the criminal’s personality
  • The relationship between the biological and the social in the personality structure of a criminal
  • Classification and typology of the personality of a criminal
  • The meaning, scope, methods and main directions of studying the personality of a criminal in the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs
• The mechanism of individual criminal behavior
  • Causality as an interaction between the social and the biological
  • Psychological mechanism of personality behavior
  • The role of a specific situation in the commission of a crime
  • The role of the victim in the genesis of criminal behavior
• Basics of victimology
  • History of the emergence and development of the doctrine of sacrifice
  • Basic principles of victimology. Victimization and victimization
  • “Victim of a crime” and “personality of the victim”: concepts and their relationship
• Organization and conduct of criminological research
  • The concept of “criminological research” and “criminological information”
  • Organization and main stages of criminological research
  • Methods of criminological research
  • Methods of criminal statistics and their use in criminological research
• Crime Prevention
  • The concept of "crime prevention"
  • Types and stages of preventive activities
  • Individual prevention
  • Classification of preventive measures
  • Crime Prevention System
• Criminological forecasting and crime prevention planning
  • The concepts of “criminological forecast” and “criminological forecasting”, their scientific and practical significance
  • Types and scales of criminological forecast. Subjects of criminological forecasting
  • Methods and organization of criminological forecasting
  • Predicting individual criminal behavior
  • Crime Prevention Planning and Programming
• SPECIAL PART
• Legal, organizational and tactical basis for the activities of internal affairs bodies in crime prevention
  • The role and main tasks of internal affairs bodies in crime prevention
  • Legal support for crime prevention
  • Information Support crime prevention and planning preventive measures
  • Methods of general crime prevention
  • Methods for individual crime prevention
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of juvenile delinquency
  • Key indicators of juvenile delinquency
  • Identity of juvenile offenders
  • Causes and conditions of juvenile delinquency
  • Organization of prevention of juvenile delinquency
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of recidivism and professional crime
  • Concept, signs and types of criminal recidivism and professionalism. The concept of recidivism and professional crime
  • Social and legal characteristics of recidivism and professional crime
  • Criminological characteristics and personality typology of criminals - repeat offenders and professionals
  • Determinants of recidivism and professional crime
  • Features of the determination of professional crime
  • Main directions of preventing recidivism and professional crime
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of group and organized crime
  • The concept and signs of group and organized crime
  • Criminological characteristics of group and organized crime
  • Prevention of group and organized crime
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of violent crimes
  • Serious crimes against the person as a social and legal problem
  • Current state and trends of serious violent crimes against the person
  • Characteristics of people who commit serious violent crimes
  • Determinants of Violent Crimes Against Persons
  • Main directions for the prevention of violent crimes against individuals
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes against property
  • Criminological characteristics of crimes against property
  • Criminological characteristics of persons committing crimes against property and their typology
  • Determinants of Property Crime
  • Main directions of preventing crimes against property. Features of the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs to prevent these crimes
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes committed in the sphere economic activity
  • The concept and current state of crimes in the sphere of economic activity
  • Characteristics of factors causing crime in the sphere of economic activity
  • Characteristics of the personality of a criminal who commits crimes in the field of economic activity
  • Main directions of crime prevention in the field of economic activity
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes against public safety and public order
  • Concept and socio-legal assessment of crimes against public safety and public order
  • Criminological characteristics, determinants and main directions of terrorism prevention (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Criminological characteristics, determinants and main directions for preventing hostage-taking (Article 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Criminological characteristics, determinants and main directions for the prevention of hooliganism (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Criminological characteristics, determinants and main directions for the prevention of environmental crimes (Articles 246-262 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
  • Computer crimes and their criminological characteristics
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of crimes committed through negligence
  • Concept, types and criminological features of crimes committed through negligence
  • Criminological characteristics of persons committing careless crimes
  • Causes and conditions of reckless crimes
  • Preventing reckless crimes
  • Criminological features and prevention of motor vehicle crimes
• Criminological characteristics and prevention of socially negative phenomena associated with crime
  • The concept of “socially negative phenomena” and their connection with crime
  • Criminological characteristics and prevention of drug addiction
  • Criminological characteristics and prevention of drunkenness and alcoholism
  • Criminological characteristics and prevention of prostitution
  • Marginality and crime
• International cooperation in crime prevention
  • The concept and significance of international cooperation in combating crime
  • Legal and organizational forms of interaction between government bodies of different countries in the study of crime and its prevention
  • Main directions and forms of international cooperation in combating crime
  • International cooperation in combating certain types of crimes: illicit trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances, legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime

The relationship between the biological and the social in the personality structure of a criminal

The relationship between the social and the biological in the personality of a criminal attracts considerable attention from scientists - biologists, sociologists, doctors, lawyers, etc. A criminology-specific basis for interest in socio-biological and socio-psychiatric issues is the need for a deeper explanation of violent (including domestic) crime, recidivism, juvenile delinquency, careless crime associated with the use of sources of increased danger, as well as the need to further improve the effectiveness of all types and forms of prevention

The authors of a number of textbooks on criminology, in essence, offer only a psychological concept of the personality of the subject of a crime. The psychological personality traits referred to in some definitions (anxiety, impulsiveness, uncertainty) are socially neutral. Even aggressiveness is not always a negative quality. These features of the course of mental processes are more likely to be in the nature of functional disorders caused by the biological characteristics of some people.

The essence of the problem of the relationship between social and biological in the personality of a criminal and criminal behavior lies in the qualities of a person on which criminal behavior depends:

• from those that he inherited, passed on genetically (for example, abilities, temperament, characteristics of response to the world, behavior programs, etc.);
• from those that he acquired in the process of living in society (as a result of upbringing, training, communication, i.e. the process of socialization).

Being a social being, a person is endowed with biological characteristics that make a person who he is, physically healthy or sick. The psychophysiological state of a person makes him capable of perceiving the surrounding social reality, since, having been born as a biological being, he becomes a person by perceiving social norms and values. A mentally ill person is incapable of such perception. Therefore, such persons commit socially dangerous acts, but not crimes.

Biological characteristics of a person contribute to a person’s perception of social programs, but cannot become the reason for his criminal behavior. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the entire set of biological factors does not make a phenomenon social, since they lie in different planes of real life.

The difficulty also lies in the fact that the relationship between the social and the biological is not constant and identical. It is different in different links of the causal chain: in the initial stage of human development, leading to an act of conscious behavior: in the process of development of a specific organism and the life of an individual; in the process of social development.

The first link in the causal chain refers to the initial stage of development of the human body and is far from criminal behavior. From a criminological point of view, it is important to establish whether at this stage there are any biological factors that may subsequently influence the development of personality in a criminogenic direction. Here it is necessary to take into account that the biological development of an individual is a complex interaction of three groups of factors: genetic (hereditary), environmental (influence of the external environment) and individual, which are the product of the interaction of these factors.

Modern science has not definitively proven the existence of innate programs for socially approved or criminal behavior, despite recent advances in deciphering the human genome. Hereditary signs of such behavior have also not been established. On the contrary, genetics has proven that traits acquired during life cannot be inherited.

However, this does not mean that when studying the causes of a particular crime, everything that relates to the biological structure of the criminal’s personality should be avoided. It cannot be denied that man is not only a social but also a biological being. In his behavior, including criminal behavior, there are always not only social, but also biological elements.

The second link is related to the relationship between the social and the biological in the process of personality formation. The biological element in this link is much less pronounced than in the previous one, and the social element is much stronger. Among the biological qualities in the process of personality formation, gender, age, state of physical and mental health, as well as the presence of pathological abnormalities are of significant importance.

Age characteristics have the greatest influence on personality formation. At different age stages, the impact of the social environment on the individual is not the same. Thus, the immaturity of the nervous system at an early age, the body’s unpreparedness for many mental manifestations, the peculiarities of youth’s perception of the surrounding reality, increased emotionality and the inability to really evaluate possible consequences under unfavorable circumstances may contribute to the commission of a crime. This is a prerequisite for separating juvenile delinquency into a separate independent type of crime.

The third link of criminal behavior is associated with the origin of criminal intent and the implementation of a criminal plan. In this link, two social factors interact: a specific life situation that is important for the reason for committing a crime, and the personality of the criminal with an established criminogenic motivation.

There are three points of view on this problem.

1. Social factors play a decisive role in the genesis of criminal behavior.
2. The main factors of criminal behavior are biological.
3. In relation to some crimes, social factors are the main ones, and in relation to others - biological ones.

From the standpoint of the legal approach, this problem is solved quite simply at the logical level. Crime in this interpretation is a complex systemic set of crimes. Thus, crime is secondary to the legal regulation of human behavior: violation of the ban appears after the ban is established.

Before the advent of regulatory regulation, it is incorrect to evaluate the totality of murders, other forms of violence, the facts of seizure, taking away objects from others as a crime. You can’t talk about crime in relation to the world of animals. This term is also meaningless when applied to a normless human society.

Speaking of essence legal regulation human behavior, it should be borne in mind that a norm can regulate behavior only if a person is able to:

• firstly, consciously, adequately perceive it;
• secondly, consciously manage your behavior, i.e. a person must have freedom of choice: to act in accordance with the law or contrary to it.

The biological dominants of the so-called born criminal deny free will. A regulatory prohibition is initially unable to restrain them from these actions, and therefore, such “born criminals” are outside the scope of legal regulation, and, despite the external similarity of these acts to crimes, they cannot be classified as criminal, which is reflected in the modern doctrine criminal law (institute of insanity).

If the decisive factor in a socially dangerous act was not insurmountable biological dominants, but, for example, a socially conditioned feeling of revenge or the desire to live no worse than others, combined with the hope of impunity, then the social nature of the crime is obvious.

In world practice, cases have been recorded in which persons who committed crimes under the influence of an irresistible craving for criminal violence were convicted and served long sentences. When impulses to commit violent crimes appeared in places of detention or after being released, they turned to specialists, and they were provided with fairly effective medical care. Such people are able to correctly perceive legal prohibitions and, with the help of society (represented by specialists of this kind), restrain themselves from committing a crime. If society does not provide them with timely assistance (or they are not informed about the possibility of receiving it), this is no longer a biological, but a social prerequisite for a crime. And in the event of a crime being committed by persons of this type, it will be the decisive factor in criminal behavior.

At the same time, this category of people undoubtedly finds themselves in a more difficult position compared to ordinary citizens. In order to ensure greater fairness when deciding on the criminal liability of such persons, the legislator in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced a special provision on the criminal liability of persons with mental disorders that do not exclude sanity (Article 22 of the Criminal Code). Such persons are subject to criminal liability in accordance with the law, however, “a mental disorder that does not exclude sanity is taken into account by the court when assigning punishment and may serve as a basis for imposing compulsory medical measures.”

Proponents of the anthropological approach to the interpretation of crime focus their attention on those phenomena that lawyers classify as socially dangerous acts committed in a state of insanity or diminished sanity. In this regard, their position is very vulnerable, since in this case a significant array of crimes remains beyond the analysis of anthropologists. The theological approach seems to transfer the problem of crime to a completely different (ideal) plane, where questions about the relationship between the social and the biological practically do not arise. Sociological theories provide evidence of the social conditioning of the behavior of born criminals.

At this stage of development of human sciences, primarily genetics, it is not possible to prove the priority of biological characteristics of a criminal’s personality over social ones. Based on this, in studying the personality of a criminal, the greatest attention should be paid to socially determined characteristics, taking into account the influence that they have on their formation biological features individual.

The concepts of “personality” and “individuality”, from the point of view of domestic psychology, do not coincide. Moreover, in Russian psychological science there are quite a lot of disagreements regarding the relationship between these concepts. From time to time, scientific disputes arise on the question of which of these concepts is broader. From one point of view (which is most often presented in the works of representatives of the St. Petersburg psychological school), individuality combines those biological and social characteristics of a person that make him different from other people, i.e. the concept of “individuality” from this position seems broader than the concept of “personality”. From another point of view (which can most often be found among representatives of the Moscow psychological school), the concept of “individuality” is considered as the narrowest in the structure of human organization, uniting only a relatively small group of qualities. What these approaches have in common is that the concept of “personal

"ness" includes, first of all, human qualities that manifest themselves at the social level during the formation of social relations and connections of a person.

At the same time, there are a number of psychological concepts in which the personality is not considered as a subject of a system of social relations, but is presented as a holistic integrative formation, including all the characteristics of a person, including biological, mental and social. Therefore, it is believed that with the help of special personality questionnaires it is possible to describe a person as a whole. This difference of opinion is caused by differences in approaches to considering the relationship between the biological and the social in the structure of a person’s personality.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person’s personality is one of the central problems of modern psychology. In the process of formation and development of psychological science, almost all possible connections between the concepts of “mental”, “social” and “biological” were considered. Mental development was interpreted as a completely spontaneous process, independent of either biological or social, and as derived only from biological or only from social development, or as a result of their parallel action on the individual, etc. Thus, several groups of concepts can be distinguished , who differently consider the relationship between the social, mental and biological.

In the group of concepts that prove the spontaneity of mental development, the mental is viewed as a phenomenon completely subordinate to its own internal laws, in no way connected with either the biological or the social. At best, the human body, within the framework of these concepts, is assigned the role of a kind of “container” of mental activity. Most often we come across this position among authors who prove the divine origin of psychic phenomena.

In biologizing concepts, the mental is viewed as a linear function of the development of the organism, as something that unambiguously follows this development. From the perspective of these concepts, all features of mental processes, states and properties of a person are determined by the features of the biological structure, and their development is subject exclusively to biological laws. In this case, laws discovered in the study of animals are often used, which do not take into account the specifics of the development of the human body. Often in these concepts, to explain mental development, the basic biogenetic law is invoked - the law of recapitulation, according to which in the development of an individual the evolution of the species to which this individual belongs is reproduced in its main features. An extreme manifestation of this position is the statement that the mental as an independent phenomenon does not exist in nature, since all mental phenomena can be described or explained using biological (physiological) concepts. It should be noted that this point of view is very widespread among physiologists. For example, I.P. Pavlov adhered to this point of view.

There are a number of sociological concepts that also proceed from the idea of ​​recapitulation, but here it is presented somewhat differently. Within the framework of these concepts, it is argued that the mental development of an individual

What shapes personality: heredity or environment!

From the very moment of birth, the influences of genes and environment are closely intertwined, shaping the personality of the individual. Parents provide both genes and a home environment to their offspring, both of which are influenced by the parents' own genes and the environment in which they were raised. As a result, there is a close relationship between the inherited characteristics (genotype) of the child and the environment in which he is raised. For example, because general intelligence is partly heritable, parents with high intelligence are more likely to have a child with high intelligence. But in addition, parents with high intelligence are likely to provide their child with an environment that stimulates the development of mental abilities - both through their own interactions with him and through books, music lessons, trips to the museum and other intellectual experiences. Due to this double positive connection between genotype and environment, the child receives a double dose of intellectual capabilities. Likewise, a child raised by parents with low intelligence may encounter a home environment that further exacerbates hereditary intellectual disability.

Some parents may deliberately create an environment that negatively correlates with the child's genotype. For example, introverted parents may encourage a child's social activities to counteract the child's own introversion. Parents are very active child On the contrary, they may try to come up with some interesting quiet activities for him. But regardless of whether the correlation is positive or negative, it is important that a child's genotype and his environment are not just two sources of influence that add up to shape his personality.

Under the influence of the same environment, different people react to an event or the environment itself in different ways. A restless, sensitive child will sense parental cruelty and react to it differently than a calm, flexible child; a harsh voice that brings a sensitive girl to tears may not be noticed at all by her less sensitive brother. An extroverted child will be drawn to people and events around him, while his introverted brother will ignore them. A gifted child will learn more from what he reads than an average child. In other words, every child perceives the objective environment as a subjective psychological environment, and it is this psychological environment that shapes the further development of the individual. If parents create the same environment for all their children - which, as a rule, does not happen - it will still not be psychologically equivalent for them.

Consequently, in addition to the fact that the genotype influences simultaneously with the environment, it also shapes this environment itself. In particular, the environment becomes

in a summary form reproduces the main stages of the process of historical development of society, primarily the development of its spiritual life and culture.

The essence of such concepts was most clearly expressed by V. Stern. In his proposed interpretation, the principle of recapitulation covers both the evolution of the animal psyche and the history of the spiritual development of society. He writes: “The human individual in the first months of infancy, with a predominance of lower feelings, with an unreflective reflexive and impulsive existence, is in the mammalian stage; in the second half of the year, having developed the activity of grasping and versatile imitation, he reaches the development of the highest mammal - the monkey, and in the second year, having mastered vertical gait and speech, the elementary human state. In the first five years of play and fairy tales, he stands on the level of primitive peoples. This is followed by entry into school, a more intense introduction into a social whole with certain responsibilities - an ontogenetic parallel to a person’s entry into culture with its state and economic organizations. In the first school years, the simple content of the ancient and Old Testament world is most adequate to the child's spirit; the middle years bear the features

This is a function of the child’s personality thanks to three types of interaction: reactive, evoked and proactive. Reactive interaction occurs throughout life. Its essence lies in the actions or experiences of a person in response to influences from the external environment. These actions depend both on the genotype and on the conditions of upbringing. For example, some people perceive an act that harms them as an act of intentional hostility and react to it very differently than those who perceive such an act as the result of unintentional insensitivity.

Another type of interaction is caused interaction. The personality of each individual evokes its own special reactions in other people. For example, a baby who cries when held is less likely to feel positive in a parent than one who enjoys being held. Obedient children evoke a parenting style that is less harsh than aggressive ones. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that the observed relationship between the characteristics of a child’s upbringing by parents and the make-up of his personality is a simple cause-and-effect relationship. In reality, a child's personality is shaped by the parent's parenting style, which in turn has a further influence on the child's personality. Caused interaction occurs, just like reactive interaction, throughout life. We can observe that the favor of a person causes the favor of those around him, and a hostile person causes others to have a hostile attitude towards him.

As the child grows, he begins to move beyond the environment created by his parents and choose and build his own. This latter, in turn, shapes his personality. A sociable child will seek contacts with friends. His sociable nature encourages him to choose his surroundings and further reinforces his sociability. And what cannot be chosen, he will try to build himself. For example, if no one invites him to the cinema, he organizes this event himself. This type of interaction is called proactive. Proactive interaction is the process by which an individual becomes an active agent in the development of his or her own personality. A sociable child, entering into proactive interaction, selects and builds situations that further contribute to his sociability and support it.

The relative importance of the considered types of interaction between the individual and the environment changes during development. The connection between a child's genotype and his environment is strongest when he is small and almost entirely confined to the home environment. As the child matures and begins to choose and shape his environment, this initial connection weakens and the influence of proactive interaction increases, although reactive and evoked interactions, as noted, remain important throughout life.

fanaticism of Christian culture, and only in the period of maturity is spiritual differentiation achieved, corresponding to the state of culture of the New Age.”

Of course, we will not discuss the question of the truth of this or that approach. However, in our opinion, when citing such analogies, one cannot fail to take into account the system of training and education, which develops historically in every society and has its own specifics in each socio-historical formation. Moreover, each generation of people finds society at a certain stage of its development and is included in the system of social relations that has already taken shape at this stage. Therefore, in his development, man does not need to repeat the entire previous history in a condensed form.

No one will dispute the fact that a person is born as a representative of a certain biological species. At the same time, after birth, a person finds himself in a certain social environment and therefore develops not only as a biological object, but also as a representative of a particular society.

Of course, these two trends are reflected in the patterns of human development. Moreover, these two tendencies are in constant interaction, and for psychology it is important to clarify the nature of their relationship.

The results of numerous studies of the patterns of human mental development suggest that the initial prerequisite for the mental development of an individual is his biological development. An individual is born with a certain set of biological properties and physiological mechanisms, which act as the basis of his mental development. But these prerequisites are realized only when a person is in the conditions of human society.

Considering the problem of interaction and mutual influence of biological and social in human mental development, we distinguish three levels of human organization: the level of biological organization, the social level and the level of mental organization. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind that we are talking about interaction in the triad “biological-mental-social”. Moreover, the approach to studying the relationship between the components of this triad is formed from an understanding of the psychological essence of the concept of “personality”. However, answering the question of what personality is psychologically is in itself a very difficult task. Moreover, the solution to this issue has its own history.

It should be noted that in various domestic psychological schools, the concept of “personality”, and even more so the relationship between the biological and the social in the individual, their role in mental development, is interpreted differently. Despite the fact that all domestic psychologists unconditionally accept the point of view that states that the concept of “personality” refers to the social level of human organization, there are certain disagreements on the issue of the degree to which social and biological determinants are manifested in the individual. Thus, we will find a difference in views on this problem in the works of representatives of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities, which are the leading centers of Russian psychology. For example, in the works of Moscow scientists one can most often find the opinion that social determinants play a more significant role in the development and formation of personality. At the same time, the works of representatives of St. Petersburg University prove the idea that social and biological determinants are equally important for the development of personality.

From our point of view, despite the divergence of views on certain aspects of personality research, in general these positions rather complement each other.

In the history of Russian psychology, the idea of ​​the psychological essence of personality has changed several times. Initially, the understanding of personality as a psychological category was based on a listing of the components that form personality as a kind of mental reality. In this case, personality acts as a set of qualities, properties, traits, and characteristics of the human psyche. From a certain point of view, this approach was very convenient, since it allowed us to avoid a number of theoretical difficulties. However, this approach to the problem of understanding the psychological essence of the concept of “personality” was called “collector’s” by academician A.V. Petrovsky, because in this case the personal

ity turns into a kind of container, a container that absorbs interests, abilities, traits of temperament, character, etc. From the perspective of this approach, the task of a psychologist comes down to cataloging all this and identifying the individual uniqueness of its combination in each individual person. This approach deprives the concept of “personality” of its categorical content.

In the 60s XX century The issue of structuring numerous personal qualities came up on the agenda. Since the mid-1960s. Attempts began to be made to elucidate the general structure of personality. The approach of K.K. Platonov, who understood personality as a kind of biosocial hierarchical structure, is very characteristic in this direction. The scientist identified the following substructures in it: direction; experience (knowledge, abilities, skills); individual characteristics of various forms of reflection (sensation, perception, memory, thinking) and, finally, the combined properties of temperament.

It should be noted that K. K. Platonov’s approach was subject to certain criticism from domestic scientists, and above all representatives of the Moscow psychological school. This was due to the fact that the general structure of personality was interpreted as a certain set of its biological and socially determined characteristics. As a result, the problem of the relationship between the social and biological in personality became almost the main problem in personality psychology. In contrast to the opinion of K.K. Platonov, the idea was expressed that the biological, entering the human personality, becomes social.

By the end of the 1970s, in addition to focusing on a structural approach to the problem of personality, the concept of a systems approach began to develop. In this regard, the ideas of A. N. Leontiev are of particular interest.

Let us briefly characterize the features of Leontiev’s understanding of personality. Personality, in his opinion, is a special type of psychological formation generated by a person’s life in society. The subordination of various activities creates the basis of personality, the formation of which occurs in the process of social development (ontogenesis). Leontiev did not include the genotypically determined characteristics of a person in the concept of “personality” - physical constitution, type of nervous system, temperament, biological needs, affectivity, natural inclinations, as well as acquired knowledge, skills and abilities during life, including professional ones. The categories listed above, in his opinion, constitute the individual properties of a person. The concept of “individual,” according to Leontiev, reflects, firstly, the integrity and indivisibility of a particular person as a separate individual of a given biological species and, secondly, the characteristics of a particular representative of the species that distinguish it from other representatives of this species. Why did Leontiev divide these characteristics into two groups: individual and personal? In his opinion, individual properties, including those genotypically determined, can change in a variety of ways during a person’s life. But this does not make them personal, because personality is not an individual enriched by previous experience. The properties of an individual do not transform into personality properties. Even transformed, they remain individual properties, not defining the emerging personality, but constituting only the prerequisites and conditions for its formation.

The approach to understanding the problem of personality formulated by Leontiev found its further development in the works of domestic psychologists - representatives of the Moscow school, including A. V. Petrovsky. In the textbook “General Psychology,” prepared under his editorship, the following definition of personality is given: “Personality in psychology refers to a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in the individual.”

What is personality as a special social quality of an individual? First of all, we should proceed from the fact that the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical. Personality is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society in the process of entering into relations that are social in nature. Therefore, very often in Russian psychology, personality is considered as a “supersensible” quality, although the bearer of this quality is a completely sensual, bodily individual with all his innate and acquired properties.

To understand the basis on which certain personality traits are formed, we need to consider a person’s life in society. The inclusion of an individual in the system of social relations determines the content and nature of the activities he performs, the circle and methods of communication with other people, i.e., the features of his social existence and lifestyle. But the way of life of individual individuals, certain communities of people, as well as society as a whole is determined by the historically developing system of social relations. This means that personality can be understood or studied only in the context of specific social conditions, a specific historical era. Moreover, it should be noted that for an individual, society is not just the external environment. The individual is constantly included in the system of social relations, which is mediated by many factors.

Petrovsky believes that the personality of a particular person can continue in other people, and with the death of the individual it does not completely die. And in the words “he lives in us even after death” there is neither mysticism nor pure metaphor, this is a statement of the fact of the ideal representation of the individual after his material disappearance.

Considering further the point of view of representatives of the Moscow psychological school on the problem of personality, it should be noted that in the concept of personality, in most cases, the authors include certain properties belonging to the individual, and this also means those properties that determine the uniqueness of the individual, his individuality. However, the concepts of “individual”, “personality” and “individuality” are not identical in content - each of them reveals a specific aspect of a person’s individual existence. Personality can only be understood in a system of stable interpersonal connections, mediated by the content, values, and meaning of the joint activities of each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are real, but supersensual in nature. They manifest themselves in specific individual properties and actions of people included in the team, but are not limited to them.

Just as the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form unity, but not identity.

If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relations, they turn out to be insignificant for assessing personality and do not receive conditions for development, just as only individual traits that are most “involved” in the leading activity for a given social community act as personality traits. The individual characteristics of a person do not appear in any way until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relations, the subject of which is the given person as an individual. Therefore, according to representatives of the Moscow psychological school, individuality is only one of the aspects of a person’s personality.

Thus, in the position of representatives of the Moscow psychological school, two main points can be traced. Firstly, the personality and its characteristics are compared with the level of social manifestation of the qualities and properties of a person. Secondly, personality is considered as a social product, in no way connected with biological determinants, and therefore, we can conclude that the social has a greater influence on the mental development of the individual.

The idea of ​​the problem of personality, formed within the framework of the St. Petersburg psychological school, is most clearly presented in the works of B. G. Ananyev. The first distinctive feature of Ananyev’s approach to considering the problem of personality psychology is that, unlike representatives of the Moscow psychological school, who consider three levels of human organization “individual - personality - individuality,” he identifies the following levels: “individual - subject of activity - personality - individuality” . This is the main difference in approaches, which is largely due to different views on the relationship between the biological and the social and their influence on the process of human mental development.

According to Ananyev, personality is a social individual, an object and subject of the historical process. Therefore, in the characteristics of a person, the social essence of a person is most fully revealed, i.e., the property of being a person is inherent in a person not as a biological being, but as a social one. In this case, a social being is understood as a person of a specific socio-historical era in the totality of his social relations. Consequently, the St. Petersburg psychological school, like the Moscow school, includes the social characteristics of a person in the concept of “personality”. This is the unity of positions in Russian psychology regarding the problem of human personality. The difference in views between these schools is revealed when considering the structure of personality.

According to Ananyev, not all psychophysiological functions, mental processes and states are included in the personality structure. Of the many social roles, attitudes, and value orientations, only a few are included in the personality structure. At the same time, this structure may also include some properties of the individual, many times mediated by the social properties of the individual, but themselves related to the characteristics of the human body (for example, mobility or inertia of the nervous system). Consequently, as Ananyev believes, the personality structure includes the structure of the individual in the form of the most general and relevant complexes of organic properties for life and behavior.

Thus, the main difference between representatives of the two leading Russian psychological schools lies in the difference on the issue of the participation of biological determinants in the formation of personality. Ananyev emphasizes that he is quite close to the position of K.K. Platonov, who identified four substructures in the personality structure: 1) biologically determined personality characteristics; 2) features of its individual mental processes; 3) the level of her preparedness (personal experience) 4) socially determined personality qualities. At the same time, Ananyev notes that personality changes both in the process of human history and in the process of individual development. A person is born a biological being, and becomes a personality in the process of ontogenesis through the assimilation of the socio-historical experience of mankind.

In addition, Ananyev believes that all four main aspects of personality are closely related to each other. However, the dominant influence always remains with the social side of the individual - its worldview and orientation, needs and interests, ideals and aspirations, moral and aesthetic qualities.

Thus, representatives of the St. Petersburg school recognize the role of biological determinants in the mental development of the individual with the dominant role of social factors. It should be noted that disagreements on this issue lead to certain differences in views on the nature of individuality. Thus, Ananyev believes that individuality is always an individual with a complex of natural properties, but not every individual is an individual. To do this, the individual must become a person.

Later, the famous Russian psychologist B.F. Lomov, exploring the problems of personality formation, tried to reveal the complexity and ambiguity of the relationship between the social and biological in personality. His views on this problem boiled down to the following main points. Firstly, when studying the development of an individual, one cannot limit oneself only to the analysis of individual mental functions and states. All mental functions must be considered in the context of personality formation and development. In this regard, the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social appears primarily as a problem of the relationship between the organism and the individual.

Secondly, it should be borne in mind that one of these concepts was formed within the biological sciences, and the other within the social sciences. However, both simultaneously relate to a person both as a representative of the species Homo sapiens and as a member of society. At the same time, each of these concepts reflects different systems of human properties: in the concept of organism - the structure of the human individual as a biological system, and in the concept of personality - the inclusion of a person in the life of society.

Thirdly, as has been repeatedly noted, when studying the formation and development of personality, domestic psychology proceeds from the fact that personality is a social quality of an individual, in which a person appears as a member of human society. Outside of society, this quality of an individual does not exist, and therefore, without an analysis of the “individual-society” relationship, it cannot be understood. The objective basis of an individual’s personal properties is the system of social relations in which he lives and develops.

Fourthly, the formation and development of personality must be considered as its assimilation of social programs that have developed in a given society at a given historical stage. It must be borne in mind that this process is directed by society with the help of special social institutions, primarily the system of upbringing and education.

Based on this, we can draw the following conclusion: the factors that determine the nature of an individual’s development are systemic in nature and are highly dynamic, that is, at each stage of development they play a different role. However, they contain both social and biological determinants. An attempt to present these determinants as the sum of two parallel or interconnected series that determine the nature of an individual’s mental development is a very gross simplification that greatly distorts the essence of the matter. There is hardly any universal principle for organizing the relationship between the mental and the biological. These connections are multifaceted and multifaceted. The biological can act in relation to the mental as its certain mechanism, as a prerequisite for the development of the mental, as the content of mental reflection, as a factor influencing mental phenomena, as the cause of individual acts of behavior, as a condition for the emergence of mental phenomena, etc. Even more diverse and the connections between mental and social are multifaceted.